[Sbcl-help] (E)TYPECASE compile-time behaviour

I have two instances of ETYPECASE inside a function
that refer to a type (class) that isn't defined yet.
SBCL complains about both at compile-time.
I couldn't find any reference in the spec saying that
the types need to be defined at compile-time.
This could either mean that I didn't look close enough
or that SBCL shows some implementation-specific behavior
here that is allowed by the spec.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Thank you!
Leslie
--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer

Thread view

I have two instances of ETYPECASE inside a function
that refer to a type (class) that isn't defined yet.
SBCL complains about both at compile-time.
I couldn't find any reference in the spec saying that
the types need to be defined at compile-time.
This could either mean that I didn't look close enough
or that SBCL shows some implementation-specific behavior
here that is allowed by the spec.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Thank you!
Leslie
--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer

"Leslie P. Polzer" <sky@...> writes:
> I have two instances of ETYPECASE inside a function
> that refer to a type (class) that isn't defined yet.
>
> SBCL complains about both at compile-time.
>
> I couldn't find any reference in the spec saying that
> the types need to be defined at compile-time.
>
> This could either mean that I didn't look close enough
> or that SBCL shows some implementation-specific behavior
> here that is allowed by the spec.
>
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/03_be.htm
--
With best regards, Stas.